[MBTI General] Being The Perpetual Devil's Advocate

[Gloriana]

I was just thinking about something I have the propensity to do that regularly irritates those around me, and I wondered if any of you could relate. Not sure if it's actually a strictly INFJ thing or not.

I tend to constantly play devil's advocate and argue an opposing side, even if I agree with the person I'm talking to.

Whenever I get upset at some injustice, or form an opinion on world affairs or the way people treat each other, whatever it is I will sit there inside my head examining the entire thing from all angles. Trying to slip myself into the shoes of all sides and see what there is to see. Sometimes the idea of taking an absolutely staunch position on things can feel akin to closing off my mind. I always want to learn as much as possible, and I guess I feel that if I commit to one concrete angle I will be blinding myself to enlightenment I might receive from the other side were I to remain open.

So when people come at me sometimes with their arguments I might start taking up the opposing side if I start feeling like the person hasn't even given the other side ONE THOUGHT. If they don't throw qualifiers in there like "I can see this point from the opposing forces but..." or "I know from another perspective it appears as..." or other such things and just STEAMROLL, I'll just find myself bringing up all these counterpoints EVEN IF I AGREE with the other person. My aim honestly is not to WIN anything, I'm really just asking if they have considered the mindset of the opposing side. Still, more often than not whomever I get into these discussions with will eventually throw their hands up and say "Fine, you win, whatever, you're fucking impossible" or similar, lol. (Also, they will get extremely pissed once I calm my shit down and let them know just how much I really did hear their side and how much validity I agree is there, hehe)

My ESTP friend once said "You're the only person I know who can feel the same way I do about something but make me feel like a bastard for feeling that way". I acknowledge my pain-in-the-ass tendencies, I try really hard to explain my compulsions but it can prove difficult.

I'm also a complete and utter hypocrite, I admit it, and I do seem to have a knack for frustrating people to absolute hair pulling. Some issues I don't wane from, and I usually have way more stamina for arguing my point (because I'm a loquacious bastard like that). The same ESTP has tried to take up the same method of counter attack from the opposing side but can't seem to do it, I can't describe the level of pissed off he's gotten at me at times.

One of my favorite things that he's ever said to me was "No, thank you for this, I have a reason to live now, I'm hanging on until I figure out how to destroy you", lol.

I can't help myself!!!

 

[Haight]

There's nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate.

 

[Costrin]

There's nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate.

Yes there is.

 

[kyuuei]

I disagree. I believe the devil's advocate is a very crude, petty way of arguing.

 

[Haight]

I disagree. I believe the devil's advocate is a very crude, petty way of arguing.

But what if you could produce a positive understanding through this tactic?

 

[JocktheMotie]

I disagree. I believe the devil's advocate is a very crude, petty way of arguing.

You need all sides of the argument though. Closing off an area of discussion just because it's a "devil's advocate" position limits your chance of examining the situation fully.

 

[Haight]

You need all sides of the argument though. Closing off an area of discussion just because it's a "devil's advocate" position limits your chance of examining the situation fully.

That's ridiculous.

Do you even know what you're saying?

 

[kyuuei]

That's ridiculous.

Do you even know what you're saying?

Would it make any difference if he really didn't know what he's saying?

 

[Domino]

You need all sides of the argument though. Closing off an area of discussion just because it's a "devil's advocate" position limits your chance of examining the situation fully.

But in removing limits, you have no guidelines and therefore have nothing with which to judge the matter at hand. You've reduced yourself to a security camera, observing with voyeuristic detachment.

 

[Udog]

You need all sides of the argument though. Closing off an area of discussion just because it's a "devil's advocate" position limits your chance of examining the situation fully.

But what about analysis paralysis? What's the point of seeing so much that you don't even get anything done?

Not that I know anything about that.

 

[Domino]

But what about analysis paralysis? What's the point of seeing so much that you don't even get anything done?

Not that I know anything about that.

"analysis paralysis"? wtf? did you steal that from Oprah?

you know, for a P, you really seem to be down on those who can see more than you can.

 

[JocktheMotie]

But in removing limits, you have no guidelines and therefore have nothing with which to judge the matter at hand. You've reduced yourself to a security camera, observing with voyeuristic detachment.

But what about analysis paralysis? What's the point of seeing so much that you don't even get anything done?

Not that I know anything about that.

If you can't see everything, whatever conclusion you come to is flawed simply because not all data was considered to form the conclusion. It's seeing the tree and not the forest.

 

[poppy]

I play devil's advocate for fun sometimes, or if I think someone has made a decision without considering the other options.

I wouldn't do it in debate about a serious or academic subject, but when discussing more informal matters I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[kyuuei]

If you can't see everything, whatever conclusion you come to is flawed simply because not all data was considered to form the conclusion. It's seeing the tree and not the forest.

But what if the forest is irrelevant to the analysis we need done? What if the tree is sufficient?

 

[Udog]

"analysis paralysis"? wtf? did you steal that from Oprah?

I know better than to take my advice from ENFJs.

you know, for a P, you really seem to be down on those who can see more than you can.

That's the thing, though. The more you think you see, the more you miss.

 

[Gloriana]

Maybe "Devil's Advocate" wasn't the right choice. I don't take up the opposing argument just for the SAKE of doing it, like I don't do it just to do it or be a pain. Like I wrote, I think it's just how much I feel MORE in touch with how I feel about a particular thing if I've genuinely put some thought into the thoughts and feelings of an opposing viewpoint.

Sometimes I've found reason to rethink my own side, but I've also found more concrete reasons for my own viewpoint too. I just find it more enlightening to do that, and I guess I get fiesty about it if I feel someone has just investigated/researched/listened to stuff from their OWN side rather than branching out.

I like to think I'm helping them get better at debate even if they hate me for it

 

[Domino]

But what if the forest is irrelevant to the analysis we need done? What if the tree is sufficient?

Wood will never be irrelevant as long as we have to breathe and eat cereal. Analysis will never be irrelevant as long as we have to find trees and cereal.
Therefore, tree analysis is vital to seeing the whole forest even if loggers have been in the area.

 

[JocktheMotie]

But what if the forest is irrelevant to the analysis we need done? What if the tree is sufficient?

In order to ascertain the relevance of the forest to the analysis, it must be examined anyways.

Only when everything is examined are you capable of indentifying whether only the tree is sufficient.

 

[poppy]

Wood will never be irrelevant as long as we have to breathe and eat cereal.

Might I suggest switching to a tastier cereal. My personal favorite is Fruity Dyno-Bites.

/end derail.

 

[BlueScreen]

I love playing the Devil's advocate. It puts people in their place and makes them think. Is a great tool.

It isn't about taking the opposing view for the sake of it. It is used as an argument clarifier, and to give people perspective on what they are saying.